Badger3k, what is this you know about Myers having a grudge against Shermer?

PZ has a long history of going after Shermer for various things. He's a libertarian, that's pretty much a mortal sin for PZ (I've been broadly tarred with that label for being part of a forum); I believe Shermer has spoken out against the type of tactics PZ uses, and IIRC PZ also spoke out against Shermer when he commented on the attacks and actions by people like Ophelia Benson (Shermer wrote an article on the witch hunts, Benson & Watson wrote against Shermer - well, Benson wrote a lot, and PZ chimed in several times as well in his own posts - last Dec). I did a quick search of Shermer back on the Scienceblogs site, and found one from 2006 where PZ goes after Shermer for being an accomodationist.

Someone posted a bunch of links to the more recent anti-Shermer stuff, but I couldn't find it. If you go to both the FTB and Scienceblogs Pharyngula site and search for Shermer, you'll see a few that promote him for one thing or another, but also a lot of disagreement. I'm not sure when he started to really go after him - I think it was his politics some years ago, but when Shermer started speaking out against the SJW actions (and, a big maybe here, the atheism+ debacle), PZ (and his friends) got more strident against him.

Maybe it's just the emotional aspect, but from watching and reading him over...I don't know, 10 years maybe, if it goes back that far - at least sometime in the early 2000s, I've remembered more posts against something Shermer said or did than otherwise. This is added in with things PZ has said against Libertarians (like Penn Jillette) and accomodationists, the "dictionary atheists" bit and other things.

I also remember PZ talking about allegations against Shermer some time ago (pre FTB). I think this had to do with either the rep Shermer had - apparently he liked to sleep with the Skeptic Groupies, from what PZ and his friends have said - or some instance where (the third-or more-hand story of someone who slept with Shermer and the next day all they apparently got was an autographed book, and were upset by it. Not sure what an adult in a one night stand expected). A lot of things have blended together over the years, so take that into account (I could be wrong on some specifics or even generalities), and my own bias may be coloring my memories.

For Shermer, I'm not that fond of him myself - don't really care for his politics (his conversion story on his exposure to Ayn Rand sounds like some religious conversions, being just as lacking in critical thinking), and some of the attitude he displays towards some of the loons (both religious and alternative woo peddlers) comes off as soft to me sometimes.

Sorry I couldn't provide links - I used to have some but that was a few hard drive crashes ago, but if you search both sites you might be able to see what I mean (or see if I have a different take on it than what you read). Some of this comes from reading other sites and comments at other sites, and I rarely keep links to anything like that. If you look up Skepticblog and look for Shermer on Libertarianism, you might find (a few years back) his conversion story and may even see my comments (I wasn't polite, if I remember).

Probably too much and not enough to help, but if you're interested do the searches and decide for yourself.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.

The userbase of Reddit is not indicative of anything but the shitty userbase of Reddit.

What does Reddit have to do with this conversation? I'm truly arguing in good faith.

What is the biggest subreddit? How many subscribers?

How many subscribers to r/skeptic?

I already mentioned, in the post that got lost, the 15 year old girl who posted a picture of herself with Demon Haunted World. The reaction to her was not acceptable to many atheists. There is the divide. It exists because significant numbers of atheists and skeptics are publicly homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and/or rape-endorsing. That is not an exhaustive list, but it will do for starters.

That's one of the things that I am skeptical of. The automatic assumption that anyone who posts is an atheist and/or skeptic. That assumes that no one who is not one of those things would read or post on the forum/reddit/thread/YouTube channel/etc without being one of those things.

The same with Watson and her "threats" - she gets trolled for being loud and obnoxious, but everyone who writes to her is automatically evidence that they are atheists or skeptics. It's politcal to just accept that they are since it fits the narrative being spread.

About the only thing I would say that we can say, is that a lot of the people who commented were assholes.

It's no problem for someone to say anything they want on the internet - I'm a one-armed Eskimo living in Topeka and I worship Cthulhu. Obviously (I hope) that's too outrageous to believe, but a lot of people fell for the Tom Johnson/Wally Smith affair and apparently didn't learn to be skeptical.

From what I've seen, the atheist and skeptic movements (and there are a lot of different ones of each, they are not monolithic) are pretty fairly representative of society at large. I have seen no evidence that the problem is worse than in society - all I see is such "evidence" as you state, and other hyperbolic emotionalisms, misrepresentations, ignoring of countering evidence, etc. And all the buzzwords, such as "hyper skepticism", "privilege", etc. Like reading the pointy haired boss on Dilbert.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Badger3k, what is this you know about Myers having a grudge against Shermer?

PZ has a long history of going after Shermer for various things. He's a libertarian, that's pretty much a mortal sin for PZ (I've been broadly tarred with that label for being part of a forum); I believe Shermer has spoken out against the type of tactics PZ uses, and IIRC PZ also spoke out against Shermer when he commented on the attacks and actions by people like Ophelia Benson (Shermer wrote an article on the witch hunts, Benson & Watson wrote against Shermer - well, Benson wrote a lot, and PZ chimed in several times as well in his own posts - last Dec). I did a quick search of Shermer back on the Scienceblogs site, and found one from 2006 where PZ goes after Shermer for being an accomodationist.

Someone posted a bunch of links to the more recent anti-Shermer stuff, but I couldn't find it. If you go to both the FTB and Scienceblogs Pharyngula site and search for Shermer, you'll see a few that promote him for one thing or another, but also a lot of disagreement. I'm not sure when he started to really go after him - I think it was his politics some years ago, but when Shermer started speaking out against the SJW actions (and, a big maybe here, the atheism+ debacle), PZ (and his friends) got more strident against him.

Maybe it's just the emotional aspect, but from watching and reading him over...I don't know, 10 years maybe, if it goes back that far - at least sometime in the early 2000s, I've remembered more posts against something Shermer said or did than otherwise. This is added in with things PZ has said against Libertarians (like Penn Jillette) and accomodationists, the "dictionary atheists" bit and other things.

I also remember PZ talking about allegations against Shermer some time ago (pre FTB). I think this had to do with either the rep Shermer had - apparently he liked to sleep with the Skeptic Groupies, from what PZ and his friends have said - or some instance where (the third-or more-hand story of someone who slept with Shermer and the next day all they apparently got was an autographed book, and were upset by it. Not sure what an adult in a one night stand expected). A lot of things have blended together over the years, so take that into account (I could be wrong on some specifics or even generalities), and my own bias may be coloring my memories.

For Shermer, I'm not that fond of him myself - don't really care for his politics (his conversion story on his exposure to Ayn Rand sounds like some religious conversions, being just as lacking in critical thinking), and some of the attitude he displays towards some of the loons (both religious and alternative woo peddlers) comes off as soft to me sometimes.

Sorry I couldn't provide links - I used to have some but that was a few hard drive crashes ago, but if you search both sites you might be able to see what I mean (or see if I have a different take on it than what you read). Some of this comes from reading other sites and comments at other sites, and I rarely keep links to anything like that. If you look up Skepticblog and look for Shermer on Libertarianism, you might find (a few years back) his conversion story and may even see my comments (I wasn't polite, if I remember).

Probably too much and not enough to help, but if you're interested do the searches and decide for yourself.

Oh, I thought you knew something.

Yes, PZ Myers has criticized Shermer for being a libertarian, and a global warming skeptic. The recent back and forth was over some sexist remarks that Shermer refused to own. Myers has also praised him for articles, books, videos, and debate performances.

Anything that suggests PZ Myers has a grudge against Shermer?

As far as I can tell, there wasn't an entry about Shermer since January.

How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.

The userbase of Reddit is not indicative of anything but the shitty userbase of Reddit.

What does Reddit have to do with this conversation? I'm truly arguing in good faith.

What is the biggest subreddit? How many subscribers?

How many subscribers to r/skeptic?

I already mentioned, in the post that got lost, the 15 year old girl who posted a picture of herself with Demon Haunted World. The reaction to her was not acceptable to many atheists. There is the divide. It exists because significant numbers of atheists and skeptics are publicly homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and/or rape-endorsing. That is not an exhaustive list, but it will do for starters.

That's one of the things that I am skeptical of. The automatic assumption that anyone who posts is an atheist and/or skeptic. That assumes that no one who is not one of those things would read or post on the forum/reddit/thread/YouTube channel/etc without being one of those things.

Okay, let's pretend I am not familiar with those subreddits, and go so far as to say maybe only 10% of commenters on r/atheism are atheists.

We would still then be talking about probably the largest atheist venue on the internet. A venue with a culture of rape and homophobic jokes.

Unless you have a reason for thinking that those 10%, atheist redditors all, are disgusted by the culture at r/atheism (and generally throughout reddit), and are unlikely to participate in sexism, homophobia, and the like, your immaculate skepticism gives birth to the same conclusion as the less meticulous of us have already made: A significant number of atheists on the internet embrace minority-bashing and misogyny.

Quote

I have seen no evidence that the problem is worse than in society

It probably isn't. What is your point?

--------------Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

May 23rd, 2012Pseudonymous commenter Miriamne, Michael Shermer, JREFPrior to the current spate of naming, a comment left at Friendly Atheist names Michael Shermer as allegedly having harassed her, and “trying to sleep with a new young woman every TAM”.[...]

July 29th, 2013

Ashley Paramore, unnamed assailant, JREFAshley details a recent sexual assault at a conference in a video on her Youtube channel, relating how a number of witnesses were present for an unwelcome groping at TAM.

August 6th, 2013

Karen Stollznow, unnamed assailant, unnamed organizationPossibly emboldened by Ashley Paramore’s stand, Karen Stollznow comes forward with her own story of having been serially sexually harassed and assaulted over the course of several years. (DOWN)

PZ Myers, Ben Radford, CFIPZ Myers updates a post linking to Stollznow’s blog several hours after Ian Murphy names Radford to verify that a number of others had named him as well in private emails.

August 7th, 2013

Carrie Poppy, DJ Grothe and Ben Radford, JREF and CFICarrie Poppy releases a series of email bombs about the Ben Radford case and describes the major events leading up to her leaving her job as Communications Director of JREF after being serially mistreated by DJ.

Sasha Pixlee, DJ Grothe, JREFSasha describes an incident when he first met DJ Grothe, wherein he suggests that he might drug Sasha and deliver him to his friends to “have fun with him”.

Jason Thibeault, Ben Radford, CFII point out that accounts regarding whether or not Radford was punished or even found to have sexually harassed Stollznow by the investigator are in contention, after a private message from Radford to someone who unfollowed him on Facebook is revealed in part in public.

Unnamed victims through Jen McCreight, Lawrence Krauss, CFIJen explains that one person alleged that Lawrence Krauss had harassed them, then later that a second person alleged he had assaulted them; and that this news came as no surprise as his name has long been whispered in the private back-channels at conferences between women wanting to protect themselves. (REDACTED)

Unnamed victims through Brian Thompson, Ben Radford and Michael Shermer, CFI and JREFBrian Thompson, former employee of JREF, claims to personally know a number of women who have been harassed by Radford and Shermer, via Twitter. He specifies two instances of ‘being creeped at’, one of ‘being groped’.

Elyse Anders, Michael Shermer, JREFElyse describes some unwelcome salacious comments from Shermer after she drops a chicken tender at the TAM9 reception buffet.

August 8th, 2013

Matthew Baxter, Ben Radford, CFI10:35am Central: Matthew Baxter, Karen Stollznow’s husband, in a comment on Blake Smith’s Facebook page, corroborates Stollznow’s story. Speaking directly to Ben Radford, he says that Radford persistently continued to contact Stollznow after being asked for years to stop. Baxter says that he and Stollznow have copies of correspondence backing this up. He also says that when Stollznow cut off communication with Radford, Radford called her “disrespectful.”

Jen McCreight, Lawrence Krauss, CFIAfter a vaguely lawsuit-threatening comment by Krauss on her blog, Jen redacts the previous post and begins referring to him as Famous Skeptic.

Eddy Cara, Lawrence Krauss, CFIEddy relates several of the stories that have floated around regarding Krauss’ questionable activities on a CFI cruise, and how he is frequently mentioned as an alleged serial harasser by the informal back-channel of women trying to protect one another from such harassment at conferences. The post is taken down the same day after Krauss comments almost identically to what was posted at Jen’s; the post is replaced with a statement by The Heresy Club that it was found to be in breach of guidelines. (DOWN)

[/I]Eddy Cara, Lawrence Krauss, CFI[/I]Eddy Cara comments on his personal blog about the post that was taken down from Heresy Club, which he considered a “calculated risk”.

Unnamed victim via Stephanie Zvan, Lawrence Krauss, CFIStephanie Zvan reports being told the same story as PZ regarding an assault by Lawrence Krauss, though it could be the same person reporting the same incident.

Unnamed victims via PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, JREFPZ Myers posts accounts by sources he trusts regarding allegations of Michael Shermer’s witnessed and experienced predatory tactics and alleged sexual assault of women he coerced into a position where they could not legally consent.

Ashley Paramore, unnamed assailants, JREFAshley details in a follow-up video the absurd levels of harassment she has since received for talking about her assault, despite not naming names. She uses this to explain why underreporting of harassment and assault is such an issue.

naomibaker, Michael Shermer, JREFnaomibaker relates her story about how she was contacted ostensibly by Michael Shermer’s wife asking if the story she told about a cheating husband without names was talking about Michael. She listed names that Shermer had apparently had affairs with, several of the names being recognizeable.

August 12th, 2013

Joe Anderson, Ben Radford, CFIJoe Anderson corroborates Karen Stollznow’s story, stating that he was one of the folks deposed by CFI’s investigators about the behaviour he witnessed from Radford.

Karen Stollznow, Ben Radford, CFIThe original post by Karen Stollznow is taken down after Ron Lindsay sends a letter to Scientific American. Karen is told by SA staff that it was taken down due to legal threats, while Ron Lindsay claims to have only asked for corrections. The Google Cache version of the page now also 404s, but a copy still exists on Scrible.

PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, JREFMichael Shermer’s lawyer issues a cease-and-desist letter demanding that PZ remove the post containing the allegations and claiming that PZ did not hear directly from the alleged victim as he stated, pointing out an update suggesting that Carrie Poppy is responsible for putting the alleged victim in contact with PZ (no word on whether PZ actually spoke to the victim directly though); and claiming that PZ has a profit motive in blog hits. (DOWN) (A cached copy exists on scribd.)

Carrie Poppy, Michael Shermer, JREFCarrie Poppy and PZ Myers publicly state that Carrie only put the alleged victim into contact with PZ, and that Carrie is not really involved otherwise, despite the assertions in the cease-and-desist letter.

rikzilla, Michael Shermer, JREFrikzilla relates a story where Shermer propositioned his wife, calling her sexy and asking her to his room for private drinks while he was present.

Renee Davis-Pelt, unnamed assailant, JREFRenee posts on Facebook that she was present to witness the assault described by Ashley Paramore that happened at TAM.

August 14th, 2013

PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, JREFThe deadline given to PZ by Michael Shermer’s lawyers to acknowledge receipt has elapsed. The post is still up.

Ian Murphy, Michael Shermer, JREFIan Murphy publishes an email exchange with Shermer wherein Shermer makes some comments, against his lawyer’s orders, about the allegations and his dealings with PZ Myers.

Badger3k, what is this you know about Myers having a grudge against Shermer?

PZ has a long history of going after Shermer for various things. He's a libertarian, that's pretty much a mortal sin for PZ (I've been broadly tarred with that label for being part of a forum); I believe Shermer has spoken out against the type of tactics PZ uses, and IIRC PZ also spoke out against Shermer when he commented on the attacks and actions by people like Ophelia Benson (Shermer wrote an article on the witch hunts, Benson & Watson wrote against Shermer - well, Benson wrote a lot, and PZ chimed in several times as well in his own posts - last Dec). I did a quick search of Shermer back on the Scienceblogs site, and found one from 2006 where PZ goes after Shermer for being an accomodationist.

Someone posted a bunch of links to the more recent anti-Shermer stuff, but I couldn't find it. If you go to both the FTB and Scienceblogs Pharyngula site and search for Shermer, you'll see a few that promote him for one thing or another, but also a lot of disagreement. I'm not sure when he started to really go after him - I think it was his politics some years ago, but when Shermer started speaking out against the SJW actions (and, a big maybe here, the atheism+ debacle), PZ (and his friends) got more strident against him.

Maybe it's just the emotional aspect, but from watching and reading him over...I don't know, 10 years maybe, if it goes back that far - at least sometime in the early 2000s, I've remembered more posts against something Shermer said or did than otherwise. This is added in with things PZ has said against Libertarians (like Penn Jillette) and accomodationists, the "dictionary atheists" bit and other things.

I also remember PZ talking about allegations against Shermer some time ago (pre FTB). I think this had to do with either the rep Shermer had - apparently he liked to sleep with the Skeptic Groupies, from what PZ and his friends have said - or some instance where (the third-or more-hand story of someone who slept with Shermer and the next day all they apparently got was an autographed book, and were upset by it. Not sure what an adult in a one night stand expected). A lot of things have blended together over the years, so take that into account (I could be wrong on some specifics or even generalities), and my own bias may be coloring my memories.

For Shermer, I'm not that fond of him myself - don't really care for his politics (his conversion story on his exposure to Ayn Rand sounds like some religious conversions, being just as lacking in critical thinking), and some of the attitude he displays towards some of the loons (both religious and alternative woo peddlers) comes off as soft to me sometimes.

Sorry I couldn't provide links - I used to have some but that was a few hard drive crashes ago, but if you search both sites you might be able to see what I mean (or see if I have a different take on it than what you read). Some of this comes from reading other sites and comments at other sites, and I rarely keep links to anything like that. If you look up Skepticblog and look for Shermer on Libertarianism, you might find (a few years back) his conversion story and may even see my comments (I wasn't polite, if I remember).

Probably too much and not enough to help, but if you're interested do the searches and decide for yourself.

Oh, I thought you knew something.

Yes, PZ Myers has criticized Shermer for being a libertarian, and a global warming skeptic. The recent back and forth was over some sexist remarks that Shermer refused to own. Myers has also praised him for articles, books, videos, and debate performances.

Anything that suggests PZ Myers has a grudge against Shermer?

As far as I can tell, there wasn't an entry about Shermer since January.

Also, I know that SJW is intended as a perjorative, but why? What is wrong with social justice?

There isn't a problem with wanting equality. That's not what Social Justice Warriors want. They want a privileged position where their ideas are the only ones worth having. The normally tolerate no dissent or even discussion, and love to tar their opponents with everything under the sun. They see the world through their ideology, and all the activities that I've seen on the big name SJWs, they are rather loathsome people. When someone who was been raped says somthing against them, the first thing you see is "you weren't really raped". They hold others to a standard they don't hold themselves.

These SJWs are the ones who want to force others to be with them or against them (re: Carrier's CHUD rant). They want atheism, a simple lack of belief in gods, to carry all this other stuff that isn't appropriate (similar to theists insisting atheists have particular thoughts or values - or lack thereof).

Social justice is a good thing. Social Justice Warriors are the new Keyboard Kommandos.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.

The userbase of Reddit is not indicative of anything but the shitty userbase of Reddit.

What does Reddit have to do with this conversation? I'm truly arguing in good faith.

What is the biggest subreddit? How many subscribers?

How many subscribers to r/skeptic?

I already mentioned, in the post that got lost, the 15 year old girl who posted a picture of herself with Demon Haunted World. The reaction to her was not acceptable to many atheists. There is the divide. It exists because significant numbers of atheists and skeptics are publicly homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and/or rape-endorsing. That is not an exhaustive list, but it will do for starters.

That's one of the things that I am skeptical of. The automatic assumption that anyone who posts is an atheist and/or skeptic. That assumes that no one who is not one of those things would read or post on the forum/reddit/thread/YouTube channel/etc without being one of those things.

Okay, let's pretend I am not familiar with those subreddits, and go so far as to say maybe only 10% of commenters on r/atheism are atheists.

We would still then be talking about probably the largest atheist venue on the internet. A venue with a culture of rape and homophobic jokes.

Unless you have a reason for thinking that those 10%, atheist redditors all, are disgusted by the culture at r/atheism (and generally throughout reddit), and are unlikely to participate in sexism, homophobia, and the like, your immaculate skepticism gives birth to the same conclusion as the less meticulous of us have already made: A significant number of atheists on the internet embrace minority-bashing and misogyny.

Quote

I have seen no evidence that the problem is worse than in society

It probably isn't. What is your point?

For the first part - significant # of atheists - let's see the evidence. Do the study. Let's see the results (be sure to include your methodology). You've already limited your response to "atheists online" as opposed to "atheists in general", so it should be easier, although verification might be problematic.

If we go with your assumption that 10% of the posters are atheists, and if we go with 7 billion on the planet, with millions of atheists over the world, what fraction is that?

Now, is the internet infested with trolls? I'd probably agree with that.

However, how can you say that a significant number of atheists on the internet embrace minority-bashing and misogyny, and then agree with me that the problem is no worse than in society? Are you making the claim that the society (we'll limit ourselves to American culture in general) is filled with misogynists and racists to a large degree?

If so, I disagree, and that is also where I disagree with the hysterical SJW trope of "the atheists and skeptics are filled with these rapists and misogynists who work to keep "the Patriarchy" in place." Without that, all these chicken littles are doing is drawing attention to themselves, and every time the attack something that is not what they think it is, not only do they belittle the actual problem (such as actual sexual assault instead of "making me feel uncomfortable") and damage those who are actually working instead of blogging about it for their in-group on the internet.

Case in point - David Silverman was accused of racist actions by an ex-employee. Only one of the SJWs at FTB actually looked into it and said something. Since he was an ally, they (almost) all gave him a pass, saying things like, we need more information. Yet give them a simple thing such as Brian Dalton saying you can refuse a drink, and they want to crucify him as a witch, saying he is blaming the victim and that it is ok to rape drunk women. These extremists are not living in the real world. That's the danger of the internet silo they have.

The recent actions saying that storifying someone's public tweets is harassment. Yet when someone on their side records a ton of tweets that one of their opponents made (which if I recall correctly), that is ok. Two legs good, four legs bad. When you have some people who do vanity searches of their names and go to places where someone makes fun of them, then they make a blog post and point that location out (which may have received no attention otherwise)...and then claim that as harassment? When an employee of CFI says that because she broke her ankle once, she knows how it feels to be blind? WTF? When someone says that internet comments or tweets has caused PTSD, minimizing those who really have it, such as soldiers or actual rape victims...WTF?

Sorry, got a bit ranting which is more towards the SJWs than the current one I was responding to, but we're talking loons who think that their first world twitter comments are as bad as the real victims throughout the world, sorry, these nutters need to be shunned into the corner and ignored until they grow up. There's a lot more (the different types of feminism, the infantilizing of women, the rejection of women of color by people like Marcotte, the white knighting, the rejection of standards of evidence (aka, the "always believe the victim" trope, which assumes they actually are victims without evidence), the redefinition or misuse of terms such as "misogyny" or "privilege", the attempt to basically take over a gravy train on the conference circuit (which also has issues) - a whole lot more I'm not going to waste anybodies time here on. There are other venues for that, or which have my opinions on record.

Sorry, rant over for sure now.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

all the buzzwords, such as "hyper skepticism", "privilege", etc. Like reading the pointy haired boss on Dilbert.

Are you implying that you understand Dilbert's boss, or that you don't understand what "privilege" and "hyper" mean?

Or, are you asking for simpler words? Or what?

They use buzzwords without understanding what they mean, or the correct way to use them. When called on them, they scoff at "dictionary" definitions as if having consistent terms is something bad. They seem to vie to see who can use the most buzzwords so they seem to be saying something, when in reality they are full of shit.

Example: Privilege is a sociological term used, and which is very flexible since it depends on the context and culture. The SJWs use it as a bludgeon, where my being a causcasian male means I can't understand many of the things they talk about.

"hyperskepticism" is their buzzword which means "you are skeptical of things I like". They reject any call for evidence of a claim when it supports them, but if the same situation is reversed, they'll make every demand for the same information they refused to give before.

Consistency is not part of the SJW canon.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

I think it is rational to provisionally believe that Shermer not only raped at least one woman, but that he has sexually harassed others.

If I was planning to attend TAM and Skepticon with a woman, I would be damned grateful to PZ for publishing that account.

Why is it rational to provisionally believe that Shermer raped and harassed women? Do you believe that of all speakers at such things?

Is there something about Shermer that makes you suspect he did it, or that the anonymous account that PZ says he obtained (probably through Carrie Poppy) has some veracity? If someone said that they heard you raped a woman at a conference, would you be ok with them blogging about it and warning people away from you?

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

OK, so what I'm getting here is that we aren't talking about the same thing at all. I've been seeing this a lot on the internet with regards to this topic.

I am talking about the following.1) There is an accusation made that a particular person raped a woman.2) That woman is unknown to the wider audience.3) There is no evidence for anything EXCEPT what PZ says. He says there is a woman. He says that she was raped by Shermer. He says she's not interested in going to the authorities. He says a lot of things.4) As far as the rest of the universe is concerned, there is NO EVIDENCE that the alleged event happened. We don't know who it happened to, when, where, what other factors may or may not have been involved.

I am ONLY talking about the fact that PZ accused someone of rape with no evidence. PZ may have tons of evidence. He may truly believe the person (or the friend of the person) who was raped. But he very well may be being lied to. He wasn't there.

That is why I think PZ has done an abominably stupid thing. He can't even defend his actions without naming the claimant.

He has stuck his neck out and it very well may be chopped off.

No, you say that keeping quiet is a bad move. I can understand how you might be angry. Especially if this is your friend. But shouting out to the rest of the world (WHO DOES NOT HAVE YOUR EVIDENCE) is stupid and, very likely, libel.

I may believe that my friend was raped. I know her. I know the accused rapist. But if I do not have evidence that would stand up in a court, then I shouldn't shout it out to the world.

I can say that this guy isn't to be trusted. That I wouldn't go to a conference with him. That I think he's a slime ball. But anything beyond that WITHOUT EVIDENCE is libel.

And honestly, testimonials are the absolute worst kind of evidence. As I said before, we don't know what happened. And it's a huge problem that sexual assault may very well not be sexual assault until after the fact.

That is why I would do the things that I said and NOT TELL THE WORLD. And why I would encourage going to the authorities. Regardless of the problems that police have with sexual assault crimes, and I don't deny that these problems exist, we (non-police, non-judges, non-juries) cannot take matters into our own hands.

And that is the real issue here. Shermer cannot defend himself against an unknown accuser.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

So you agree that it is not 100% certain that the alleged event even happened?

You know what will really knock me down, Kevin? Ask me if I was there.

I think I've already asked you. Do you have evidence of the event?

No, testimony of an anonymous person is not evidence.

Why won't you just answer the questions? Also, using something other than one's screen name is generally considered bad form. Indeed, the only people I've seen do are creationists right before they threaten to beat the fuck out of me because I'm "stupid".

So, OK, let's play your little game.

Where you, Driver, present when the alleged rape happened?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

So you agree that it is not 100% certain that the alleged event even happened?

You know what will really knock me down, Kevin? Ask me if I was there.

I think I've already asked you. Do you have evidence of the event?

No, testimony of an anonymous person is not evidence.

So, OK, let's play your little game.

Where you, Driver, present when the alleged rape happened?[/quote]Of course it is evidence. You mean it is not sufficient evidence.

I posted the timeline up there ^^^^.

...I was not trying to offend you by using your name. Apologies. I am not going to threaten to beat you up.

Quote

So, OK, let's play your little game.

Where you, Driver, present when the alleged rape happened?

Whoosh.

Driver, you seem to be playing some game. I tried. You apparently aren't interested in an actual discussion.

Like I said, you are behaving exactly like the creationists that appear here.

"Whoosh" indeed.

You're right personal testimony is evidence. And, you are right, I think that it is the absolute worst form of evidence there is.

On a jury, if the only prosecution evidence is eye-witness testimony, then I will not vote to convict. I know too much about people. You see, they lie. And they might even think that they are telling the truth, but sometimes, they aren't.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. Now all we have here is a (apparently) 3rd hand account.

Let me ask you, is that sufficient to publicly accuse someone of a major crime?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The truth is, of course, that some women do lie about having been raped. That shouldn’t surprise us. People make false accusations about every type of crime, even murder, where it is excruciatingly difficult to do. If no woman ever lied about being raped, the gender might have some collective claim to sainthood.

Therefore... we cannot be certain until the facts are established.

What are the facts?

umm... there aren't any. All we have is a 2nd or 3rd hand account (because PZ has indeed changed his story).

I don't understand what's so hard about this.

Maybe there was a rape. You don't know. I don't know. And despite what he's heard, PZ doesn't know. Until it is established in a court that Shermer is guilty, then saying that he is... is libel.

socle: Rape is difficult because it's (AFAIK) the only crime that can be made into a crime after the fact.

I see, in the cases of the 8 false reports, they were fabricated. Nothing happened. This is possible, but I agree unlikely. Although, I think that this report has much less impact than you think, because it's university over 10 years.

Anyway, no, what I'm thinking is specifically that someone chooses to voluntarily have sex, then regrets that decision later.

That would not be considered a 'false report' in this paper. It would be considered a "Case did not proceed" or "insufficient information".

Regardless, this is not the point. A public accusation has been made. It's serious one that could have devastating consequences to everyone. Because of the way the claim was made, Shermer has no way to defend himself.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I list his twitter source of the youtube (at least the top one works) because Silverman is president of American Atheists. The shots taken at Myers by Mr. Deity begin a little after the five minute mark.

Glen Davidson

Brian Dalton should know better than to present false equivalences. Rape is not an extraordinary claim, let alone a miraculous one! Idiot.

Is he also implying that PZ made it all up? To what end?

Myers is not trying to get Shermer convicted. Also pretty sure he would have known that if he gets sued, he will almost certainly lose.

With his "personal responsibility" remark, what is Dalton saying? It is okay to have sex with women who are too drunk to consent? Women shouldn't drink at all? Both?

Contrary to received wisdom, women do not generally lie about rape and sexual assault.

Quote

But most important of all, a victim's choices are NOT the point. To see this, think of anyone who commented on a murder or non-sexual assault charge with criticism of the victim's intoxication level. Irrelevant victim blaming isn't it?

Whilst bad choices do not exonerate blame from a perpatrator, ignoring the bad decisions that someone made that lead them to be vulnurable to a perpatrator is not very smart. Mentioning that a victim was intoxicated and that it may have contributed to their likliehood of being a victim on that occasion isn't victim blaming. Victim blaming actually exists and when people misrepresent stating a fact such as "the victim was drunk" as victim blaming which would look more like "she deserved it because she was drunk", it invalidates the cases where victim blaming is actually an issue.

Quote

Whenever it comes to any other type of assault, people's first response is not to speculate on what the victim might have done to facilitate the attack. Think about that. We don't do this for any other crime, I don't think, let alone assault.

Every time a child is kidnapped/murdered we do the exact same thing. We want to know who was responsible for looking after this child. When someone gets burgled, we ask how they got in, we talk about how we can be "safer" next time. IF someone physically assaults you in the street, we immediately ask what led to them taking this action. We never (or the rational never) say that justifies the action, but we look for reasons why that person became a victim, probably to minimise the risk of it happening to us.

Quote

Most accounts of rape are not lies.

I'm sure that this is true, just because I find it difficult to believe that the majority of people who claim they have been raped would make it up knowing the consequences for the other person as well as themselves. However, I don't know this to be true. It would need some pretty awesome research methods to ascertain how true this is. I'm unsure how you could say this with such absolute certainty.

Quote

Where "leaving your doors unlocked" is drinking wine at a conference.

What people seem loathe to understand is that consuming alcohol makes everyone more susceptible to being a victim of a crime. Anyone getting so drunk that they lose their inhibitions/are unaware of their surroundings/cannot remember what happened becomes more likely to be in an accident or the victim or perpetrator of a crime. This isn't specific to gender, biological sex or even rape itself. If someone went out, drinking enough alcohol that they were oblivious to the fact that the people he saw as new drinking buddies were actually stealing his wallet, people would criticise his behaviour as well as condemning the thieves. In fact, they would be more likely to dismiss the actions of the thieves as opportunistic behaviour rather than malicious larceny. The principle remains: some people are criminals - they seek to commit crime. There are steps we can all take to reduce our chances of being a victim to their crimes.

Quote

You know what is most wrong about this "if only she had not done X" stuff? It helps perpetuate the perception that women can always avoid rape if they are "sensible". This is patent bullshit.

You are less likely to be a victim of any crimes if you take some precautions that make you less vulnerable to being a victim of crime. Of course, that doesn't mean you will never be a victim of crime, but there are ways of minimising risk. Dismissing this concept actually "helps to perpetuate" the idea that people should not make responsible decisions because nobody should take advantage of their vulnerabilities anyway. An idea that belongs with the unicorns.

Quote

Where if we tell of a man who goes out to a bar and gets drunk and then is followed home and assaulted for his wallet, the overwhelming reaction is condemnation of the assailant not "men shouldn't go out to pubs and get blind drunk" or "I don't believe it happened". Of course, because it is fucking ridiculous to be hyperskeptical about someone getting assaulted. However, the same people, good people too, react to testimony of rape with victim blaming and denial.

As I said earlier, this isn't my experience at all. People will even go as far as to say he probably wasn't mugged at all and lost his wallet/fell over drunk.

Quote

However, nothing you said is evidence.

And this is the key point. What I want to know from people on this side of the argument is whether they want the evidence needed to take someone to court/convict them of rape should be of a lesser standard than that of other crimes? Ie you need pretty good circumstantial evidence to secure a murder conviction, should you need "okay" circumstantial evidence to convict someone of rape?

For context, my comments about drinking and rape were in reference to Brian Dalton's video.

While we may comment on the circumstances of a crime, very few people would criticize a murder victim for being drunk. While you and midwifetoad seem to regard getting drunk at all as bad decision making/a lack of common sense, I am confident this is minority opinion. Then again, I live in a country of drunks. If everyone starts seeing getting drunk as a lack of common sense then perhaps I (now a teetotaller) can look forward to less repetitive mind-numbing conversations on social occasions.

If a drunk man comes home without his wallet then, yes, we do not require any evidence to assume he has lost it. Priors are always relevant. The priors are why we should not demand an extremely high standard of evidence to provisionally accept a rape allegation.

If a woman tells us she was beaten up last night, we do not tend to say she shouldn't have been drinking.

2) The incident he refers to does not seem to involve asking if she wanted top ups.

3) The intention to have only enough drinks to be mildly buzzed can easily be subverted by others. Even light drinking affects both will and awareness.

4) It is not always easy to say no. Not only are politeness and pressure relevant (and in some cultures, such as Korean, drinking is very much expected), but quite a few people are alcoholics.

As for the allegations themselves, the key point is NOT that what I may have said in one post is not evidence. The key point is that evidence exists, and has been posted and linked to, despite the repeated claims that there is only an account published by PZ Myers and that all witnesses are anonymous.

Quote

What I want to know from people on this side of the argument is whether they want the evidence needed to take someone to court/convict them of rape should be of a lesser standard than that of other crimes? Ie you need pretty good circumstantial evidence to secure a murder conviction, should you need "okay" circumstantial evidence to convict someone of rape?